ADJUDICATION OFFICER DECISION

Adjudication Reference:  ADJ-00042607

Parties:

Complaint:

Date of Adjudication Hearing:  06/11/2024

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Michael McEntee

Procedure:

In accordance with the Workplace Relations Act,2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Acts, 1977 - 2015,following the referral of the complaint to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint.

In deference to the Supreme Court ruling, Zalewski v Ireland and the WRC [2021] IESC 24 on the 6th of April 2021 the Parties were informed in advance that the Hearing would normally be in Public, Testimony under Oath or Affirmation would be required and full cross examination of all witnesses would be provided for.

The required Oath / Affirmation was administered to all witnesses present. The legal peril of committing Perjury was explained to all parties.

No issue regarding confidentiality arose.

Background:

1:        Opening Legal Points – Time limits for case

Respondent Argument

It was stated by the Respondent, represented by Ms R Mallon BL, at the outset of the Hearing, that the case was effectively Out of Time.

The complaint had been referred to the WRC on the 5th October 2022 concerning an alleged Dismissal on the 7th October 2021.

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act,2015 as incorporated into Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissals Act,1977 states that a complaint must be lodged with six months of the date of Dismissal (Section 41(6)) although the period may be extended for a further six months for “Reasonable Cause”.

Workplace Relations Act, 2015

Section 41

(8) An adjudication officer may entertain a complaint or dispute to which this section applies presented or referred to the Director General after the expiration of the period referred to in subsection (6) or (7) (but not later than 6 months after such expiration), as the case may be, if he or she is satisfied that the failure to present the complaint or refer the dispute within that period was due to reasonable cause.

The Respondent argued that there was no basis, or none had been argued by the Complainant, for a “Reasonable Cause” extension beyond the initial six months.

Complainant Arguments

The Complainant in response pleaded that she had had health and stress issues during the period and accordingly was not in a fit state to lodge a complaint. She had experienced difficulties in securing Representation via the Trade Union, INMO, of which she was a long-standing member. Alternative Professional Representation had proved equally difficult to secure.

This had added further to her stress.

Exchange between the Parties

The Respondent counter argued that during the period the Complainant had been actively involved in a number of Industrial relations and indeed WRC issues and the “not in a fit state on mind” was simply not a sustainable argument. Ms Mallon BL expressed the view that the Complainant was a “seasoned litigant” well used to WRC procedures. References were made to other WRC Adjudication cases where the Complainant was involved.

Adjudicator Conclusion

The interpretation of “Reasonable Cause” has often been considered by the Labour Court.

Suffice to say that issues such as the length of excess over the 6-month Time Limit and Exception Grounds in a Medical context have had a major bearing on decisions. In relation to Time Limit extensions the Labour Court has always indicated that a minor extension (one or two weeks) from six months might be considered favourably but very significant extensions such as the 5 plus months in this case have to be very strongly argued and supported by very compelling evidence.

In this case the WRC Referral was within days of the expiry of the 12-month period. No concrete grounds for an extension of this duration, from the six months initial limit, were advanced. A difference during the period, with the INMO,  would not qualify.

 It was also true that the Complainant had been active in the Industrial relations / nursing representation areas during this period. A WRC referral for this case even if only on a “Holding Basis” would not have been a major task for the Complainant.

Accordingly, having considered all the evidence both Oral and Written, the Adjudication decision is that the Complaint is out of time and cannot proceed.

2:        Findings and Conclusions:

3:        Decision:

CA--00053112-001

Section 41 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and Section 8 of the Unfair Dismissal Act,1977 requires that I make a decision in relation to the complaint in accordance with the relevant redress provisions of the cited Acts.

In keeping with the above legal provisions and Sections the Complaint is out of Time and cannot proceed. It fails.

Dated:   14 January 2025

Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer:  Michael McEntee

Key Words: